Question to Mxmanic

But, mx's assumptions about vortices sinking is essentially correct. He just
doesn't understand that sometimes conditions combine to make hitting your
own wake very possible.

mike

"Viperdoc" wrote in message
...
I've done the same many times as well, both circling as well as in loops.
In an aerobatic plane with the smoke on it is easier to see your flight
path of course, which makes it easier and more fun.

This is just another example of book knowledge versus reality and
experience.

On Apr 15, 9:18 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
Maxwell writes:
The VISUAL effects of positive and negative Gs.

Vision goes first when a pilot experiences positive Gs. It goes dark. The
simulator darkens the screen when this happens.

The simulator does the same for redouts with negative Gs. The first time I
saw it, it took a while to figure out what it was. It only happens in
high-performance aircraft such as the Extra 300s, because small GA aircraft
and jetliners simply can't reach those accelerations without breaking up.

Yes, they can, fjukkwit.

Wrong again..



Don´t you ever get tired of being wrong?



Bertie

On Apr 14, 3:44 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
Gary writes:
Couldn't be more wrong. In real life, you most certainly know when
you succeed in avoiding wake turbulence.

No, you don't. You don't know if you avoided it, or if it simply wasn't there
to begin with.


Good lord you´re thick.

Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Even at a 45-degree bank, the wake will still descend (and it will also
move outward, making it hard to catch as well).

What is the wingspan of the aircraft?

But it will blow the aircraft in the same direction. The wake will
still descend relative to the aircraft.

The aircraft is powered. It need not follow the wind alone.

No. I think they just don't realize that they were descending when they
caught their own wakes.

Altimeters make this less likely than you might believe. Perhaps you are the
one that doesn't realize something. As you admit below, you didn't put much
thought into your determination.

I didn't calculate much; I just looked things up. Without exception,
every source says that the wake descends. And it has to, since that's
the only way to keep the aircraft flying.

Judah writes:

What is the wingspan of the aircraft?

The wingspan shouldn't matter.

Altimeters make this less likely than you might believe. Perhaps you are the
one that doesn't realize something. As you admit below, you didn't put much
thought into your determination.

To convince me, I need an explanation of why wakes descend universally except
by some magic exception when someone is doing a 360-degree turn.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic,

To convince me,


What, exactly, do you think this group could possibly gain by even
trying to convince you?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:
mike regish writes:

If the local air mass is rising, it will slow the sink or even raise the
vortex.

And it will raise the aircraft, too, so the result is the same.

Except in a real airplane with a real pilot, the pilot is maintaining
altitude +/- 100 feet.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:
Judah writes:

What is the wingspan of the aircraft?

The wingspan shouldn't matter.

Altimeters make this less likely than you might believe. Perhaps you are the
one that doesn't realize something. As you admit below, you didn't put much
thought into your determination.

To convince me, I need an explanation of why wakes descend universally except
by some magic exception when someone is doing a 360-degree turn.

Why in the world would anyone bother to do anything other than to tell
you it has, in fact, happened to them?

If you feel some need to be convinced you are full of crap, turn off the
computer, get off your ass, and go fly in a real airplane and observe
it for yourself.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

The wingspan shouldn't matter.

I haven't studied geometry in a long time, but simple geometry would dictate
that at a 45 degree angle, vortices generated by the higher wing would
naturally need to fall some distance before they could not be intercepted by
the lower wing.

To convince me, I need an explanation of why wakes descend universally
except by some magic exception when someone is doing a 360-degree turn.

I am not able to explain to you the scientific principles behind why I have
observed what I have observed. I can only tell you that I have observed it,
as have numerous other pilots, and the fact that you don't believe me is your
problem, not mine.

Judah, one of his problems is that he fixates on insufficient
information, and then gets frustrated when his assumptions are
incorrect. Obviously, MX can only concieve of downwash generated by the
wings as they create lift. Apparently, he can't concieve of the UPWASH
created by the tail surfaces pushing DOWN, nor the potential for
interaction between the two, or other turbulence that may be created in
the air mass merely because a large object is plowing through it at a
high rate of speed.

Rip